We have reduced support for legacy browsers.

What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.

What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.

Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »

Did Jesus fake his own death?

Did Jesus fake his own death only to “reappear” several years later and gain notoriety and fame? Was he a street magician, much like David Blaine? Or did he really turn wine into water and come back from the dead? Please discuss, I’m interested in what you all think.

> Jesus was sentenced to the cross by Pontius Pilate all right, argues Baigent in The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History (HarperCollins), but that’s where his version diverges, to put it mildly, from that of the Gospels. Pilate didn’t want him dead (Baigent’s Jesus is a prominent Jew friendly to Rome), but didn’t dare face down a mob of anti-Roman Jews demanding his execution. So Pilate had Jesus hung on the cross, but he also had him taken down alive and smuggled to safety in Egypt.
[Author Calls the Crucifixion an Elaborate Hoax](http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012953)
Like so? I don’t see why Pilate would go through that much trouble though.

How did he survive being stabbed in the side so that blood and water gushed out?
How could he survive three days in the tomb?
How could the ones who wrapped him in his grave clothes not know if he was dead?
How could the Romans (professional killers) not know if he was dead?
How could he roll the stone away?
How could he, being in bad condition if he just barely survived crucifixion, give the impression of one who conquers death?

Why couldn’t someone have simply claimed those things happened? Or conversely, why couldn’t he have actually died, and his resurrection simply been a farce? You’re immediately assuming that the events in the bible are accurate, but obviously the question is criticizing that accuracy. Particularly the part where a person comes back to life, since it’s not exactly within the boundaries of sand-tribe medical technologies.

I wasn’t aware this thread was bout the reliability of the New Testament.
Even so, why is the NT consistent with all of the records we have from that time?
Why wasn’t anything written disproving if, it it was so obviously a lie?
Why else would John say, “If you don’t believe me, go speak to one of the five-hundred witness to which He appeared”?
WHY WON’T THIS DANG COMPUTER LET ME TYPE \>\_\<

Historical writings aren’t factual until proven otherwise. Your book claims a man raised from the dead. You don’t just take that on faith because someone in that book said “go ask anyone!”
Furthermore, several people have made the exact same criticism I’ve made, and at a time much closer to the actual events. It’s been disputed, and is not objectively confirmed. In fact, I’d like to know why so many Christians seem to think that other historical documents corroborate the whole Bible.

> *Originally posted by **[Pink\_Fuzzy\_Bunny](/forums/9/topics/39993?page=1#posts-844624):***
>
> I wasn’t aware this thread was bout the reliability of the New Testament.
>
> Even so, why is the NT consistent with all of the records we have from that time?
>
> Why wasn’t anything written disproving if, it it was so obviously a lie?
>
> Why else would John say, “If you don’t believe me, go speak to one of the five-hundred witness to which He appeared”?
>
> WHY WON’T THIS DANG COMPUTER LET ME TYPE \>\_\<
Because it was written then, even if the god references aren’t accurate
To convince everyone
Because it’s a crappy keyboard

> Even so, why is the NT consistent with all of the records we have from that time?
What records? The NT having historical truths is about as relevant as Harry Potter having historical truths. It doesn’t make everything in the story true by default.
> Why wasn’t anything written disproving if, it it was so obviously a lie?
Go disprove Harry Potter and his magical world exists. I’ll be waiting right here for your concrete evidence.
> Why else would John say, “If you don’t believe me, go speak to one of the five-hundred witness to which He appeared”?
The same reason astrologers, cultists, or marketers might? An appeal to popularity doesn’t mean anything.

> Furthermore, several people have made the exact same criticism I’ve made, and at a time much closer to the actual events. It’s been disputed, and is not objectively confirmed. In fact, I’d like to know why so many Christians seem to think that other historical documents corroborate the whole Bible.
Such as whom?

> *Originally posted by **[Monstars](/forums/9/topics/39993?page=1#posts-844629):***
>
> Sorry to say this but **god and jesus are not real**.
Ah, yes, way to defend the entire argument using a very controversial unprovable statement…
> Even so, why is the NT consistent with all of the records we have from that time?
Why is carbon dating inconsistent with the bible’s claims?

“Jesus was sentenced to the cross by Pontius Pilate all right, argues Baigent in The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History (HarperCollins), but that’s where his version diverges, to put it mildly, from that of the Gospels. Pilate didn’t want him dead (Baigent’s Jesus is a prominent Jew friendly to Rome), but didn’t dare face down a mob of anti-Roman Jews demanding his execution. So Pilate had Jesus hung on the cross, but he also had him taken down alive and smuggled to safety in Egypt.”
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
my god……………………………………………….HE DIED AND ROSE ON THE THIRD DAY YOU IDIOTS! THE STONE! THE CURTAIN TEARING! DON’T YOU GET IT! DROWN THAT SIN FULL ADAM IN YOU AND TURN TO THE TRUTH! I CAN’T JUST STAND HERE AND LET YOU MAKE A MOCK OF THE ONE THAT WENT THOUGH CROSS AND DESTROYED DEATH ITSELF! Read the bible and go to church for a week (Lutheran)and you will see.

> Why is carbon dating inconsistent with the bible’s claims?
A man once picked up a piece of roadkill of the street and carbon dated it to 4000 years old. Carbon dating is not a consistent measurement of how old something is as all atoms have a different carbon lifespan (I may be using the wrong terms here as I haven’t read about this stuff in a while).
Basically carbon dating is measuring how many carbon-14 atoms vs how many of whatever other atoms are in the object. Since some atoms have a carbon lifespan of around 3 billion years we aren’t sure of exactly what time it is from.

You’re misinformed, JediDude. That’s just a slander of the carbon exchange reservoir, an effect that has been calibrated for. Besides, we use far more than carbon dating to date objects and determine the age of the universe. It must be a Satan trick that all of these different methods accurately determine the age of objects within 100s of years of each other, proving their accuracy, and that the age of the universe is far older than the Bible claims, or the lineages would suggest.

LOl, the same argument came up with the dinosaurs
I believe it was a 10% rate going both ways
So if we say a dinosaur was dated at 150 million years old, it could be anywhere between 140 and 160 million years old. NOT 3000 years old.

> *Originally posted by **[pmr0078](http://www.kongregate.com/forums/9/topics/39993#posts-845087):***
>
> LOl, the same argument came up with the dinosaurs
>
> I believe it was a 10% rate going both ways
>
> So if we say a dinosaur was dated at 150 million years old, it could be anywhere between 140 and 160 million years old. NOT 3000 years old.
Carbon dating isn’t accurate past 16,000 years.

> A man once picked up a piece of roadkill of the street and carbon dated it to 4000 years old.
Feel free to show proof any day.
> Carbon dating isn’t accurate past 16,000 years.
It is accurate enough to blow young earth creationist arguments out of the water.

If we’re working under the assumption that Jesus existed, and that he was crucified as depicted in the Bible, who says he was actually resurrected at all? If he was crucified, it would be very difficult to fake. Chances are he would have probably died.
Like PFB said (but with a rather different view):
> *Originally posted by **[Pink\_Fuzzy\_Bunny](/forums/9/topics/39993?page=1#posts-844459):***
>
> How did he survive being stabbed in the side so that blood and water gushed out?
>
> How could he survive three days in the tomb?
>
> How could the ones who wrapped him in his grave clothes not know if he was dead?
>
> How could the Romans (professional killers) not know if he was dead?
>
> How could he roll the stone away?
>
> How could he, being in bad condition if he just barely survived crucifixion, give the impression of one who conquers death?
How could he have done all those things? What if he didn’t?

> *Originally posted by **[Pink\_Fuzzy\_Bunny](/forums/9/topics/39993?page=1#posts-844459):***
>
> How did he survive being stabbed in the side so that blood and water gushed out?
if he is the messiah as Christians claim then no problem, although he could have bribed the person who stabbed him to use non lethal force> *Originally posted by **[Pink\_Fuzzy\_Bunny](/forums/9/topics/39993?page=1#posts-844459):***
>
> How could he survive three days in the tomb?
as long as there was fresh clean water one can live for days without food
> *Originally posted by **[Pink\_Fuzzy\_Bunny](/forums/9/topics/39993?page=1#posts-844459):***
>
> How could the ones who wrapped him in his grave clothes not know if he was dead?
in those days people had little to no understanding about the body, heartbeat would not be noticed by them
> *Originally posted by **[Pink\_Fuzzy\_Bunny](/forums/9/topics/39993?page=1#posts-844459):***
>
> How could the Romans (professional killers) not know if he was dead?
what this argument depends on is whether the romans bothered to check for life signs if you see some one bleading and unconscious you would assume the worst
> *Originally posted by **[Pink\_Fuzzy\_Bunny](/forums/9/topics/39993?page=1#posts-844459):***
>
> How could he roll the stone away?
easy using levers to minimize the weight he had to move/the force required to move it
> *Originally posted by **[Pink\_Fuzzy\_Bunny](/forums/9/topics/39993?page=1#posts-844459):***
>
> How could he, being in bad condition if he just barely survived crucifixion, give the impression of one who conquers death?
well he would not need to because everyone had seen him “die” and so for him to be moving and preaching the lords prayer is amazing enough

> *Originally posted by **[Lrdwhyt](/forums/9/topics/39993?page=1#posts-844650):***
>
> Why is carbon dating inconsistent with the bible’s claims?
watch the discovery channel more often , they did carbon dating on the cloth they used to wrap up jesus right after being crucified. and the results, were incorrect with the bibles claims, but as it turns out, our generation isnt the only one who tried to figure out if it was real , and ever other generation which did experiments (not carbon dating) used the same corner as we did, but everyone fixes it and makes it look as if no one has touched cut anything off. so when the carbon dating results came in and said 1600 years old, thats not when jesus was wrapped, its the last time people tried to prove/disprove Christianity, now people are trying to do another carbon dating, around the burn marks on the cloth. because chemicals from the fire preserved the original carbon atoms. But the super religous people who have the cloth preserved in italy are saying that it is not possible becasue they do not want to ruin the cloth.